Pages

Monday, 19 September 2011

Why a two-state solution won't deliver any justice for Palestine

I've had this talk with many people and thought I should post some words I've shared here.

I don't advocate a two-state solution. Nobody who seeks a proper delivery of justice for Palestine would or should. A separate Palestinian state is essentially a demilitarised bantustan on 22% of Palestine. The creation of a Palestinian state on some of Palestine is the creation of a segregated enclave.

We need to focus on civil rights, equal rights and one land for all. Read here about one state and civil rights. Compromising 78% of historic Palestine will not deliver justice whatsoever. Keep in mind that there are almost seven million displaced Palestinians, and it is a fundamental human right - a right enshrined in international law - of those stateless refugees to return to their homes, towns and villages.

I also want to note that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are leading this deal. They've been collaborating with Israel for a long time.

The Palestine leaks released this year detailed and confirmed the extent of which Abbas and the PA have been collaborating with Israel (this is something that's been known/observed/speculated/suspected etc since forever, though). With leaders who don't act in the best interests of their people and cause, there can't be justice in a 'separate' state for the Palestinians.

Abbas and the PA have been okaying settlements and have also capped the amount of Palestinians refugees that can return if they are ever actually allowed (10 000) - these are a few among many other collaborations and agreements that severely compromise Palestinian self-determination - check them out if you haven't already.

The peace process died a long time ago. (Did it ever really exist in the first place?). The two positions, the Palestinian and the Zionist positions, collide, obviously. Any actual progress toward peace would mean one party largely compromising its position. In the case of Palestinians, that would be surrendering most of their land and/or continuing to live under military occupation and a system of apartheid. In the case of Israel, a 'compromise' would be putting an end to a Zionist state and discriminatory laws, ending occupation and apartheid, and affording Palestinians equal rights they deserve as human beings, really. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which party needs to be making the concessions for peace.

If this request is vetoed, it's a success for Israel. If it's accepted, it's a success for Israel. The conflict is about principle as much as it is about the physical land itself (perhaps more so about principle, I'd say). No one is entitled to land/more rights by virtue of their religion, ethnicity etc and, of course, vice versa - nobody is entitled to less because of those differences. Splitting and dividing land - Palestinians in one section, the rest for Jews - only reinforces the inequality that's been alive for the last 63 years. A divide serves to show that cohesion isn't possible; that people need to be enclosed by borders with their 'own', and that's simply untrue.